Tuesday, February 11, 2014

ADDA President Donna McClay Makes Case for Elect and Retain

ADDA President Donna McClay reached out to her supporters Monday with this email blast (full text appears below):

Donna has Preserved DDAs’ Pay and Benefits
v  Contract extensions in 2011 and 2012 saved our Megaflex and Flex benefits plans for health care premiums, 401(k), 457(b) and step increases from reductions that could have been imposed by the County through Impasse
v  Pay raises for all DDAs –with new Contract, 6% paid over 24 months is same as Deputy Sheriffs, Firefighters and Probation Officers
Donna has the Temperament to work with management to get changes DDAs want without filing lawsuits
v  Eliminated “mandatory” lunchtime seminars
v   Stopped job description changes for DDAs that, if implemented, could have resulted in de factor demotions without administrative or legal remedies
v  Has earned management’s trust so is effective at bargaining for new contract
v  Has scheduled meetings with District Attorney management and Superior Court reps to discuss changes in metal detector security screenings and promotions process
Donna has Personal Integrity and Credibility
v  No vendetta against County or District Attorney management
v  No personal lawsuits or grievances against District Attorney or County
v  No self-interest for promotion, assignment or money
Donna has been Fiscally Responsible
v  She has not squandered DDAs’ money with new lawsuits
v  ADDA’s re-payment of our AFSCME loans is on track for full payment when due
 Donna has Plans for the ADDA’s Future Success
v   Better communication with DDAs and inclusion of DDAs in the ADDA’s decisions
v  Revise the ADDA’s bylaws to benefit DDAS
v  Build relationships with political forces that will impact our next Contract
- # - # - # -
Ballots have to received by 5:00pm Tuesday, February 2014.


Anonymous said...

After chatting with friends at lunch about this election, we all came to the same observation: Regardless of the outcome, props to losangelesdragnet for (once again) being the "go to" source for news, analyses and an occasional good chuckle!

Anonymous said...

Way I see it, we're stuck with a union that I never wanted, but now that we have to pay for it, I'm not going to let the tin foil hat gang represent me. I voted for McClay and hope y'all do too

Anonymous said...

Has the Debbaudt campaign indicated what they plan to do with all the money that won't be paid to AFSCME if we pull out of AFSCME? Will our dues be reduced?

Anonymous said...

Debbaudt might be the leader of the "tin foil hat gang," but I think he is honest about dues. He has made no statement that is a definitive "dues will go down by the $35.00 that we current pay to AFSCME," so he will probably keep dues at the same level to build up a healthy litigation war chest to fight the administration at every opportunity - including the Ipsen lawsuits.

Vote Debbaudt if you want to continue the aggressive and ineffective Ipsen era, Donna if you want results that help all DDAs, not just the broken toys.

In Defense of Marc Debbaudt said...

Marc is being unfairly criticized over his support of Steve Ipsen's lawsuit against the administration for his firing. Marc correctly states there is a an "ADDA aspect" to Ipsen's firing, but he cannot discuss details.

The fact is that if Ipsen can be fired for exercising his first amendment right to free speech in the courtroom, then so can any DDA. That is the "ADDA aspect" and it is disingenuous of Berger and his trolls to say otherwise.

By using the courtroom to advance his "Reform First" platform, Ipsen was doing us all a great service - not only reducing the overcrowding in prison, but also fighting to protect our liberties. The official DA policy on requiring Head Deputy approval to dismiss certain enhancements is outdated and unduly onerous on calendar deputies who have better things to do than write memos or meet and confer with obstructive supervisors.

This is a civil rights issue, and as such Marc is correct; there is an important ADDA aspect to this and we have an obligation to defend Ipsen to the maximum extent possible. That is what a real union does.

Anonymous said...

To 7:53.
Umm. No. There is literally nothing you said in your post that is correct.

#1. Ipsen was not advancing his free speech rights, he purported to be speaking for the county and represented his reform first plan as being part of the DA's office policy. The 1st Amendment doesn't give a DA the right to mislead the court or contravene office policy.

#2. Ipsen did not do any of us a service by striking strikes without following office policy. If anyone disagrees with office policy he can lobby to change it, thats the extent of his right but his purported view that the policy is onerous and so can be disregarded can't constitute a justification for ignoring it. As his termination correctly stated, this led to unequal administration of justice which is to my mind an unforgivable offense for a DDA.

Lastly, this is not a civil rights issue with an ADDA aspect this is a DDA who went far off the reservation and noone should be defending him.